Delhi District Court
Chandan Kumar Jha vs . Naresh Kumar & Anr on 28 May, 2015
Chandan Kumar Jha Vs. Naresh Kumar & Anr
CS272/14
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANISH KHURANA:JSCCCUMASCJCUM
GUDN. JUDGE (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
C.S. NO. 272/14
Sh. Chandan Kumar Jha
S/o Sh. Manoj Kumar Jha
nd
R/o H.No.B1/376 2 Floor,
Sector17, Rohini, Delhi. .......................... Plaintiff
Versus
1.Sh. Naresh Kumar
2. Sh. Vinay Dhingra Both at Sidhi Associates GF3 NDM, Netaji Subash Place.
Delhi34 .............................Defendants DATE OF INSTITUTION : 25.07.2014 DATE OF DECISION : 28.05.2015 SUIT FOR RECOVERY VALUE OF SUIT : Rs. 3,50,000/ COURT FEES PAID : Rs.5275 / EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1. Vide this exparte judgment, I proceed to dispose of the suit for Chandan Kumar Jha Vs. Naresh Kumar & Anr CS272/14 2 recovery of Rs. 3,50,000/ (Rupees Three Lacs Fifty Thousand Only). Through this suit, it has been prayed that a decree of Rs. 3,50,000/ along with interest @ 18 % per annum with costs of the suit may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
2. As per case of the plaintiff, it is alleged that the defendant no.1 and 2 are engaged in the business of property dealing and they run their business under the name and style of Sidhi Associates. It is alleged that vide agreement to sell/bayana receipt dated 07.01.2014 defendants entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff to sell a MIG flat bearing no.U603, Kingsbery Apartment admeasuring 1205 sq. ft. situated at TDI city Kundli for the consideration of Rs.35 lacs to be paid on or before 06.03.2014. It is alleged that the plaintiff paid the sum of Rs.3 lacs on different dates at his office at Rohini to the defendants and the defendants issued a receipt dated 07.01.2014 in favour of the plaintiff. It is also alleged that as per agreement between the parties the defendants had to arrange all the requisite documents in advance for the plaintiff for getting the Chandan Kumar Jha Vs. Naresh Kumar & Anr CS272/14 3 abovesaid property financed from the bank as well as for due execution of the sale deed. It is alleged that plaintiff called upon the defendants to supply the requisite documents to arrange the funds from the bank but the defendants avoided on one pretext or the other. It is alleged that due to nonsupply of the documents to the plaintiff, he could not arrange the funds for due execution of sale deed on 06.03.2013 and the plaintiff sought the extension of time and the defendants extended time uptil 16.03.2014. It is alleged that plaintiff came to know that the defendants are neither the owners nor in possession of the suit property and the plaintiff also came to know that one Smt. Kalpana Gutam is the owner of the suit property. It is alleged that in the month of March 2014 the plaintiff tried to contact the defendants, but the defendants avoided the matter on one pretext or the other. It is alleged that plaintiff felt cheated and asked the defendants to return the sum of Rs.3 lacs alongwith interest @18% per annum and also the damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/ but the defendants did not pay the same and the plaintiff lodged police complaint on 06.03.2014 and sent a Chandan Kumar Jha Vs. Naresh Kumar & Anr CS272/14 4 legal notice dated 18.03.2014 and the defendants sent a reply to the legal notice on 03.04.2014 and they did not pay abovesaid amount. Hence the present suit has been filed.
3. The defendants were summoned vide order dated 26.07.2014 and the defendants were served by way of publication in the newspaper 'The Statesman' dated 18.02.2015. However none appeared on behalf of the defendants and defendants were proceeded exparte vide order dated 31.03.2015.
4. The Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit in which he reiterated contents of the plaint and relied upon agreement to sell and bayana receipt as Ex.PW1/1, the copy of police complaint as Ex.PW1/2, the copy of legal notice as Ex.PW1/3, the reply to the legal notice as Ex.PW1/4 and postal receipts as Ex.PW1/5.
5. I have heard the arguments and perused the material available on record.
Chandan Kumar Jha Vs. Naresh Kumar & Anr CS272/14 5
6. In the present matter, plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and he was not crossexamined by the defendants as the defendants were proceeded exparte. In the case in hand, plaintiff is seeking the recovery of the sum of Rs.3 lacs as the refund of earnest money paid by him alongwith interest @18% per annum and damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/ w.e.f. 14.01.2014.
7. Section of 6 of code of Civil Procedure 1908 provide that "save in so far as is otherwise expressly provided, nothing herein contained shall operate to give any court jurisdiction over suits the amount or value of the subject matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limits of its ordinary jurisdiction."
8. In the instant suit plaintiff has claimed the recovery of 3.5 lacs alongwith interest @18% per annum and this court does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim which is more than Rs.3 lacs. Hence the suit filed by the plaintiff is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. Consequently, the present plaint is liable to be returned u/o 7 Chandan Kumar Jha Vs. Naresh Kumar & Anr CS272/14 6 Rule 10 CPC to be presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Plaint be returned to the plaintiff for its presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction after taking certified copies of the plaint on record. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open (Manish Khurana)
Court on 28.05.2015 JSCCcumASCJcumGudn. Judge
North, Rohini Courts, Delhi